Volume 38 — Alabama Reports

Heard before tbe Hon. Wade Keyes. The bill in this case was filed by Mrs. Louisiana V. Lewis, suing by her next iriond, against her husband, Otis F. Lewis, together with George Elrod, Gray Beavers, J. T. Bradford, J. T. Morgan, S. F. Bice, and Mrs. Eleanor ■Wright.

Tried before the Hon. Wax.. S. Mudd.-. I^This action was- brought by James P. Ragsdale and Mary F. Ragsdale, his wife, against Andrew Norwood, to recover damages for the conversion of a slave named… Held: that a writing and record aro ne.cessary to perfect a remainder. — 5 Dana., 306 ; 9 Dana^ 352; 2 Bibb, 102 ; 1 Dana, 237.

Clair. Tried before the Hon. Wm. S. Mudd. Tiro action was brought by Jolm Walker and Minerva J. Walker, (infants, suing by their next friend, Mary Walker,) against Terrell Gregory, to recover the possession of a certain tract of land, containing one hundred and sixty acres, together with damages for its detention ; and was commenced on the 16th August, 1853.

<p>Appeal from-the Register'in Chancery at-Camden, on transfer from--the Probate Court of Wilcox.-</p> <p>In the matter of the final settlement and distribution of-tire estate of Emanuel B. Chaney, deceased, who was one of the children -and heirs-at-law .of Green B. Chaney, deceased, -and of whose estate bis widow (nowMary JvNick' olson) and Charles Nicholson were the administrators. • It appeared on the settlement, that said Green BN Chaney died, intestate, in the early part of the year-1853 ; that in September, 1853, on the -petition of his administrator, the probate court granted an order for the sale of Ms real estate, for the purpose of making, an - equitable division-among Ms heirs y that the said Emanuel B. Chaney, one of the lieirs, died in October,- 1853, -leaving a widow, but no-children ; that his widow administered on his estate, and afterwards married Charles Nicholson ; and that the lands were afterwards sold under the said order of the probate court, and- the proceeds of sale were distributed among the parties in interest, — Mr. and Mrs. Nicholson, as administrators of Emanuel’s estate, receiving his share, which amounted to over $6,000. As Mrs. Nicholson had never relinquished'her dower interest, if auy she had, as‘the widow of said Emanuel Chaney, in the lands belonging to Green B. Chaney’s estate, 'the heirs and distributees insisted before -the register, 1st, that her right of dower, if any ever existed, was not affected by the sale of the lands under the order of the probate court, and .she was not entitled to any .portion of the money received by her and her husband, as administrators, arising from the proceeds of said sale ; and, .2d, that, if she was entitled to any portion at all, it was •only for life. The register decided both of these points •against the heirs, and rendered a decree, .authorizing Nicholson and wife to retain, in right of Mrs. Nicholson, one-half of the .money so received by them. The heirs and •distributees reserved exceptions to the decision and decree ■of the register, and they now assign the same as error,</p>

In the matter -o-f the petition of Lewis T. Wimberly, a® the guardian of the several -minor children of Samuel T. Wimberly, deceased»£or the sale of certain slaves, in which» he alleged, his wards had a. joint interest with tbeis mother, Mrs. Henrietta A. Wimberly* under the will of her deceased father, Guilford Alford. The will of said Alford was executed in Georgia, where bq resided at the time of his death, and was there duly admitted to probate after his death.

<p>[BILL IN EQUITY BY PURCHASE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.]</p> <p>X Offer io do equity. — In a purchaser’s bill for the specific performance of a contract-of sale, tlie complainant must show that ho has per- . formed, or offered to perform, all the stipulations of the contract on his part; or he must-show.a sufficient excuse for his failure to do so, ■ and aver his readiness and -willingness to perform them.</p>

Tried before tbe -Hon. C. W. Rapier. This action was brought by F. G-. Kimball, as the administrator de bonis non, mm testamento annexo, of Isaac H. Erwin, deceased, against James W. Russell, Ellen Thompson, and Theodore Petit, to recover the possession of several city lots in Mobile, with damages for their detention.

Heard before the Hon. James B. Clark. The bill in this case was filed by Green B. Saunders-, against James B. Cavett and William L. Saunders, as partners composing the firm of Cavett & Saunders, together with W. M. Conner, W. McD. Conner, and others.

Tried before tbe Hon. S. D. Hale. This action was brought by John Whiting, against N. Cloud and A. Underwood; and was founded on tbe defendants’ promissory, note for $3,240,, dated tbe 1st June,, '1856, and payable twelve months after 'date, to the order t»f M. P. Blue, by whom it was ‘endorsed to the plaintiff.

Apiusal from the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon-. Albs. McEinstry. This action was brought by Dominick Ginnjn^ against jEIenry C. Baldwin, to recover damages for. the conversion of a slave named Blister.

. Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This- action was brought by, William. J.. King, against; 'M. J. Kenan, the sheriff of said comity, to recover a slave ■named John, with damages for his detention; and was ■•commenced on the 7th November, 1859. The defendant pleaded non detinet, with leave to give any special matter in evidence^ and issue was joined on that plea.

In the matter of the probate of a paper, which was.,propounded for probate as the last will and testament of Elias Brown, deceased, by Hugh T. Fountain, the executor therein named; and the probate of which was contested by several of the testator’s children and grand-children, on the grounds of fraud, undue influence, and mental incapacity on the part of the testator.

Tried before the Hon. Alex. McKinstry. The complaint in this case was in the following words .t “W. D. F. Holly 1 The plaintiff claims of the defendías. ! ants fifteen hundred dollars, for that David Eoster, and f whereas, heretofore, to-wit, on the William Foster.

Tried before the Hon. Wm. S. Muld. This action was brought by A. R.' Davis, as- the administrator cle bonis non of C. C. A. Massie, deceased, against David Bragg, to: recover several slaves,: together with damages for their detention ; and was commenced on the 31st August, 1858. The defendant pleaded “the general issue, in short by consent, with leave to give any special matter in evidence ;” and issue was joined on that plea.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. This action was brought by Hezekiah Tarver and others, ,-as heirs-at-law of Wells Tarver, .deceased, to recover the .possession of a town-lot in LaFayette, together with dam-ages for its detention.

Tálíapoosav- Heard before the Hon..James B. Clark; Tile bill in this case was filed by Gfideon Black and others, children of Thomas and Mertila Black, against saicL Thomas Black and others, asking; a ■partition of certain-slaves, in which the complainants claimed a remainder, after the death of their mother,...under a deed of gift from their maternal grand-father, Thomas Leverett; also, the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the slaves, and an injunction against…

'- Heard before the Hon. John'Foster. The bill in this case was filed by Mrs, -Ruth 'Williams/suing by her next friend, against lier husband, William Wil-iiams, B. B. Avery, W.- F. Meador* and J. J. Meador ; and sought to protect the complainant’s interest in a slave named Nancy, which she claimed as her separate estate,- and to enjoin the sale of- said slave under executions against her husband.

Abpemí from the Probate Court of«'TuskaIoosa. : In the matter of • a • petition for 'dower, filed by Mrs. Sarah Forrester, as'the widow of William Forrester, deceased, against the administrators and- heirs of said decedent. The administrators demurred to the petition, on the ground {inter alia) that it did not state who were the heirs-at-law of the decedent; but the court overruled the demurrer, and held the petition sufficient.

•Appeal from-the- Probate -Court of Madison. ' In tbe matter of the final settlement and distribution of tbe estate of Arthur W. Jones, deceased, and the settlement of the accounts and'vouchers-’of… Held: that the executor was entitled to a credit, as against Clopton and wife, for the full amount of the accounts so paid by him, and therefore refused to render any decree against him, in their favor, for Mrs. Clopton’s interest in the balance subject to distribution.

.Appeal from.the Chancery Courfref Shelby.. Heard before the Hon. James B„-Clark. The bill in this case was filed,, on-the 22d March, ISoSj by Abner J. Wells, against Thomas L. Morrow, Thomas A. Fleming, Henry F. Fleming, and. John L. Fleming. Its object was, to subject a certain tract of-laad-, which was in the possession of the defendant.Morrow,-to the payment of three notes held by the complainant. .

Heard -before the Hon. John Fospeií. -. The bill in this case was filed on the 23d October, 1858, by some of the heirs-at-’law'and next of kin of Adam Hall,’. deceased, for the purpose of setting aside the probate of his last will and testament, which had been duly admitted to probate on the 29th June, 1858, and of .which William Echols and Joshua Beadle had qualified as the executors.

Tried before the Hon. Porter King. This action was brought by Elijah W. Tarver, as the surviving executor of the last will and testament of Benjamin P. Tarver, deceased, against Alexander Smith and; others, to recover the possession of a tract of land, which was described in the complaint as “ the east half of section eighteen, in township twenty-one, range twenty east, in the Tallapoosa land district;” and the names of Elijah WTarver individually, William Tarver, and James…

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. In tliis case, the appellants filed their petition, for the purpose of superseding and quashing an execution, which was issued on a judgment rendered by said circuit court, on the 26th March, 1853, in favor of Maria Walker, as executrix of John H. Walker, deceased. In the case in which said judgment was rendered, the defendants sued out an appeal to the. supreme court, at its June term, 1853.

Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by Claudius H. Mastín, against Clement B. White, to recover the value of services and attention rendered and bestowed by the plaintiff, as a physician, at the special instance and request of the defendant, to and upon one David Lumpkin ; the amount of the account being $309. The defendant pleaded, “in short b,y consent, the general iásue, and the statute of frauds”; and issue was joined on these pleas.

Heard before the Hon. N. W. Cocke. The bill in this case was filed by Wilbom C. White, the appellant, who was the executor of ..the last will and testament of John White, deceased, and also the residuary legatee under the will, against Mrs. Sarah Easters and others, who were also legatees under the will.

Heard before the Hon. N. W. Cocke. The bill in tbis case was filed by W. H. Ross & Co., against Elisha B. Lott, who was the tax-collector of Mobile county, for the purpose of enjoining the collection by the defendant of a special tax, which was levied under the act approved February 21st, 1860, entitled “ An act for the improvement of the bay and harbor of Mobile.” The complainants were wholesale and retail grocers in the city óf Mobile, and the tax which the defendant was…

the Chancery Court- at Montgomery. Heard''before-.the Hon. N. W. Cocke. The bill in this case was filed in tbe name of the State, on tlie relation of L. H. Dickerson, Tbos.

Nat. Cook. This action was brought by John T. Stapleton, against' Edward A. Spiva, to' recover the sum of -$450, alleged to' be due from defendant to plaintiff “for services rendered ' as an overseer during the year 1857”; also, the same amount, •. as “the price agreed to be paid by defendant to plaintiff for acting as overseer of his hands and plantation for the year 1857”; also, the same amount, “due by account on tbe 1st day of January, 1858, for work, and labor done by…

Heard before the Hon. M. J. Saefold. The bill in this case was filed, on the 19th April, 1839, by J. E. Dumont, against Albert Ruepprecht, asking the dissolution of a partnership which… Held: that the state of feeling between the -.par-ties was such that the partner? ship business could no longer.-be successfully prosecuted) ■ He therefore decreed a dissolution of tbe partnership, to take effect as of the 3d February, 1859, and ordered an.ao count to be taken by the master.

Heard before the-Hon. James B. Clark. The bill in this case was filed by Nancy Davis, against Jobn.B. Hubbard, for the purpose of enjoining an action at law, instituted by said Hubbard against the complainant, for the recovery of a slave j and it also asked the canceilation of a bill of salo for the slave, which the complainant had executed to Iiubbard, an account, and general relief.

Madison/' Tried before the Horn S; I).- -Hale. This action was brought by George W. Laughing-house and Fleming Jordan,.against Robert W.>-Coltart, to recover several slaves, together with- damages for their detention* The bill of exceptions is as (follows r* “On the trial of this cause, the defendant -introduced judgments- rendereddn said court, and executions issued thereon; one of said judgments being in favor- -of Wiley, Banks & Co.-, against John W-.

Tried before the Hon. Eüíiert ‘Dou&herty. This action was ■eominéhcecl by á -hotibb, ’'ivhich, afe amended, was in the following words is “To Allen DubberlyYou are 'hereby notified, that whereas David Cannon heretofore, to-wit, at the October term of the circuit court of Montgomery 'cohnty, oh (to-wit) the 31st October, 1842, at (to-wit) in said county of Montgomery, recovered a judgment against .yóü, the said Allen Dubberly, for the sum of $343 50, and costs of suit in that…

Appeal-from, the Circuit Court’of Chambers. Tried before tbe Hon.. Robert Dougherty. ' This action was brought by Samuel Dawson,, against John R. Humpbides, to recover a negro woman named Becky, with her four children, and damages for their detention.

-Appeal from the Circuit Court df Monroe. Tried before the Hon. C. W. Rapier. This adtion was brought by Dominick Gimon, against W. M. Terrell and others, owners of the steamboat Lucy Bell, to recover damages for the conversion of a slave named Brister, who was accidentally drowned while employed as a deck' hand on the defendants’ boat.

From the Circuit Court of Jefferson. Tried before the Hon. Wm. S. Mudd.

Uircuit Cdu-rfriof-sMontgomery. - Tried before the-Hofli-N¿P.--Uc5oK.' The appellees hi this case, who were licensed auctioneers-’ in the city and county of* Montgomery,- applied to the com- • missioners* 'court of’said'county; at1 its April terra,* 1861, for! an amendment and correction’of the taxes assessed against them for tbe tax year ending on the 1st of March,--. 1860 ; alleging in their petition, that, during said tax year, they; had sold at auction in said city real…

• From the Circuit Court of Winston. Tried before the Hon, Wm.

From the Circuit Court of Lowndes. Tried before the Hon. John K. Henry.

Application by Thomas S. and.Edward Coburn for & mandamus to the probate judge of Downdes county, requiring him to allow them to. adduce evidence before him, on habeas corpus, showing.the illegality of their confinement by the sheriff of said. county, as hereinafter stated.

Appeal rom the Probate Court of Dallas. In the matter of the estate of William F. Dubose, deceased, on the application of Mrs. Louisa A. Dubose, who was the widow,and administratrix, for a distribution of the slaves and, other personal property.

'Circuit Court'Of Mobile»* Tried before the Hon. C. W. Rapier. This' action was brought by the appellants; suing as late partners, against Thomas Buford and Pi'A. Savage, to recover damages for th'e alleged conversion by the defendants of two hundred and fifty thousand bricks,-- The defendants pleaded not guilty, with leave tó give'mty'special matter in evidence.

In the matter of the final settlement and distribution of the estate of Boger McGrath, deceased, by David Clopton, his executor.

Aiteal from tbe Probate Court of. Dallas. In the matter of the estate of Benjamin Y. Beene, deceased, which was declared insolvent on the 12th April, 1858, and against which the appellants filed a claim on the 22d November,. 1858^ The case was before this court at-its January term, 1861, on appeal by the administrator; when the decree of the probate eourt,-allowing the claim, was reversed, and the cause remanded. — See the case reported in 87 Ala. 812.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. The appellant in this case recovered a judgment against Hiram Read, the appellee, at the September term, 1853, of said circuit court; and on the 10th September, 1859, no execution having been issued on it, sued out a scire facias to revive said judgment. The defendant pleaded payment, and issue was joined on that plea.

Aureal from the Probate Court of Madison. Ix the matter of the petition of Joseph Laughinghouse for the revocation of letters of guardianship ever his person and .property, previously issued by said probate court, on the ground that he was a lunatic, to Jolm E. Laughinghouse.

Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by John C. Arthur, Adam B. Arthur, and Martha A. Evans, against Reese D. Gayle; and was' commencéd on the Sth February, 1858. The original complaint contained only a single count in trover, for the conversion of two slaves, Robert and Venus; but the following counts were afterwards added by amendment: “ 2.

Tried before the Hon. Henry Chamberlain. ' This action was brought by Walter C. Winston, against Cox, Brainard & Co., as the owners, and Horace Buckley as the master of the steamboat -Cremona, to recover the sum of $4,800, which was alleged to be -double the value of certain machinery belonging to the plaintiff, which had been shipped on the defendants’ said steamboat, and which they had landed at a point less than ten-feet perpendicular above the surface of tbe'water.' The…

Tried before the Hon. C. W. Rapier. This action was brought by John Bridges, against John H Garner, to recover damages for an alleged trespass, which consisted in causing the levy of an attachment against one John L. Bridges, who was a son of the plaintiff, to be made on a slave which the plaintiff claimed under a purchase from said John L. Bridges prior to the levy of the attachment.

Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by Henry H. Hicks, against John R. Lawson, to recover damages for defamatory words Written and'published by the defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff, in filing cross-interrogatories to one Lamb, whose deposition was taken by the plaintiff in a former action of trespass instituted By him; against the defendant.

Heard before the Hon. James B. Clark.- The'material Facts of this- case, stated in the order of their occurrence, are these: 111' August, 1846, one James McNaughten executed a mortgage, by which he conveyed a tract of land to Barron, Meade & Co., to secure the payment of a promissory note therein described, and which contained a power of sale in the event of the non-payment •of the note on or before the 1st January, 1847.

Heard before the Hon. James B. Clark. The bill in this case Was filed, on the 28th April, i860, by Mrs. Dicey Williams, against Joel E. Pearson, as the guardian of Sally Ann… Held: on demurrer, that the executory bequests were valid, and included all the property devised and bequeathed to Sally Ann Taylor, with the rents, income, and profits thereof, remaining undisposed of at her death ; and, consequently, that the complainant had'no interest which she could assert by bill.

‘Tried before the Hon; S. D.- Hale. 1 This action, was brought to recover damages for the loss of a slave, -who was run over and killed -by the1 defendant”» engine and cars. -The summons and complaint were in the name of Cynthia D. • Fowlkes, guardian of Ransom H. Fowlkes. The plaintiff asked leave to amend the complaint, so that the suit might run in the name of Ransom BL Fowlkes, by his next friend-, Cynthia L. Fowlkes; but the court refused to allow the amendment.

.Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Russell. Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. This action was brought by George W. Dillingham, against Benjamin G. Brown, to recover an undivided fifth part of a certain tract of land, with damages for its detention and was commenced on the 27th February, 1858. The defendant,pleaded not guilty, with leave to give in evidence any special matter of, defense.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. This was a motion against a sheriff, for failing to make tlie money oü an execution.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. Tins action was brought-by the,.appellees, was com-i menced by .attachment, and was founded on an .open account for goods sold and.- delivered. .

James B. Clark. The original bill in this case was filed on the 30th May, 1851, by Edward Carey, as the assignee .of tbe Bank of Columbus, Georgia, on belialf of himself and the other creditors of Daniel McDougald, deceased, against Jesse Wilkevson, as tbe administrator of said McDougald, and others.

Heard before the Hon. John Foster. The hill in this case was filed by John Henderson, as the administrator of Samuel C. McGehee, deceased, against Charles H. George; asking an injunction, to restrain the defendant from selling slaves under a power of sale contained in a mortgage given to him by said McGehee, on the ground of usury in tbe secured debt, and an account of the amount actually due on the mortgage debt.

.Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dallas. 'Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by the appellees, against Antonio Aicardi and Robert J. Travers, as late partners, to recover the price of certain goods sold and delivered to said Travers. A judgment by default was taken against Travers.

Heard before the Hon. James B. Clark. The original bill is this ease was filed on the 30th January, 1847, by Rives,¡Battle & Co., as judgment creditors of Thomas. IL Hill, against said Hill and Richard B. Walthall; and • sought to have a mortgage, executed by said Hill to Walthall, declared fraudulent and void as to complainants. or-.foreclosed for their benefit.

Tried before the Hon. Henry Chamberlain. The appellant in this case filed a libel against the steamboat James Dellett, for wages due him as a carpenter. The boat was seized and sold, under an order of the court, but did not bring enough to satisfy in full all the claims that were filed ,and allowed against her.

Heard before the Hon. M. J. Saeegld. The bill in this -case was filed by Alfred Hatch, against Stephen Smith, Wheaton Williams, William… Held: that the complainant was entitled to relief 5 and he therefore decreed a reformation of the mortgage, ordered the slave to be delivered up to the complainant, and directed an account to be taken of the amount due on the mortgage debt, and the hire and profits with whieh the defendants Williams and Horn were chargeable during their…

Tried before the Hon. S. D. Hale. The complaint in this case, and the judgment of the court, are as follows : “The plaintiffs, as late partners ip trade under the firm name of Burleson & Davis, claim of the defendant $485 02, due from him by account on the' 1st January, 1857 ; also, the like sum, for goods, wares and merchandize, sold by plaintiff to defendant in the year 1856, and due on the 1st January, 1857 ; and the like sum for money paid by plaintiffs for defendant,…

C. W. Rapier. This action was brought by William C. Easton, against ¿Dean Knox, to recover the possession of a city lot in Mo- • bile, and was commenced on the -3ist October, 1854. ’ The lot in controversy was described in the declaration .as ‘ ‘“commencing at a.point on the west side of St. Emanuel : street, .distant sixty feet southwardly from the south-west ■ corner or intersection of St, Emanuel and Conti streets ; thence ' running- southwardly, along the west side of…

David Campbell. This action was brought by Charles .A.- G^ipp, againisi' John W. Gordon, to recover the sum of-$604, alleged t© be “ due on account between plaintiff and.-defendant on the 1st January, 1860, and for work and labor.,.done, and materials furnished, by plaintiff for defendant.”' - On the trial, as the -bill of exceptions states, the plaintiff proved the performance of the work for which compensation was claimed; and the defendant, having introduced evidence…

Martin. This action was brought by John. A, H. Kennedy and Evaline E, Kennedy, his wife, (and revived, on the death of Mrs. Kennedy pending the suit, in-; the name of her administrator,) against Charles Foster, to recover damages for a deceit in the sale of a tract of land ’by .said Foster to Mrs. Kennedy; and was commenced on the 6th January, 1859.

Aureal from the Circuit Court of> St. Clair, 'on change of venue from Cherokee. Tried before the Hon. Wm. S. Müdd. Held: to-be the property of the-husband-absolu-tely. “5.

Heard before the Hon. James C. Clark. The bill in this case was filed, on the 18th April, 1859, by Reynolds, Devoe & Co., and other judgment… Held: that there was nothing in the assignment which, showed. that it was intended by Reis to hinder or defraud his creditors ; that its validity was not affected by the,dissent of the attaching creditors, and that the levy of their attachments gave them no preference over the other creditors; and that England & Lee, having failed to…

Appeal, from the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. Henry Chamberlain. This action was brought by Elam Phillips, for the user of Ulysses B. Phillips, (in whose name the suit was after-wards prosecuted without objection,) against Loftin Cage and. Richard Salter, to recover the rent reserved by a lease under seal; and was commenced on the 13th May, 1859.

<p>[INDICTMENT FOR MURDER.]</p> <p>1. Competency of jurón — An assault with intent to commit murder is “ an offense of the same character” as murder, within the meaning of the statute (Code, 5 3583) defining the grounds of challege to jurors in criminal cases.</p> <p>2. Homicide qf slate by slave $ sufficiency of verdict — The murder of a slave by another slave is an offense within the provisions of section 3312 of tho Code; and since the statute does not create different degrees of the offense, it is not necessary that the verdict should specify any degree.</p>

Tried before the Hon. C. W. Rapier. Tins action was brought by Robert S. Lavender, against Caleb Price, jr. The complaint contained the common counts for money loaned, money paid, and on an account stated, and a special count,in the following words : “The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of §>110, on a promissory note made by one W. H. Dupree on the 13th day of August, 1857, and payable three months after the date thereof, to the order of the said plaintiff,…

Tried before the Hon. Henry Chambeélain. This action was brought by Mrs. Maria L. Parmley, against George R. Griffith, to recover’ the sum of $500? alleged to be due for the rent of a house and lot in the city of Mobile, ior the term of one year, ending on the 31st October, 1860 j and was commenced on the 8th November, 3860.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. This action was brought by Robert A. Ingram, against W. M. A. Mitchell and John T. Leftwich, and was founded ou a penal' bond, the condition of which was as follows : “The condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bound W. M. A. Mitchell do pay, or cause to be paid, to Hugh Lockett, the sheriff of said county, the sum of $192, the amount of an attachment in the office of said sheriff against A. D. Waller, in favor of R.…

Aureal from the Circuit Court of Marengo, Tried before the Hon. Poetes King. This action was brought by Joseph B. Haden and Emma D., his wife, against James W. Tucker, to recover damages for the conversion of a slave named Ellen, The defendant pleaded not guilty, “in short by consent, with leave to give any special matter in evidence”; and issue was joined on that plea.

In the matter of the estate of John A. Jennings, deceased, on the application of Robert M. Jennings for the revocation of letters of administration granted by said probate court to Linton L. Moses. The decedent died, in August, 1853, in Payette county, Georgia, where he was domiciled at that time ; and left a nuncupative will, which was duly admitted to probate by the court of ordinary of that county.

Heard before tbe Hon. James B. Clark. The bill in this case was filed by Carlos Reese, as tbe administrator of the estate of George W. Golds by,… Held: under the Code, to vest only a life-estate in the daughter. But why ? because the property was to go ‘ at her death’ to the bodily heirs; showing clearly, by necessary implication, that the testator intended her to have only an estate for life. Here, there are no equivalent words to limit the estate of the first taker.

From the Circuit Court of Dallas» Tried before the Hon. John T. Heflin.

From the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Nat.

From the Circuit Court of Butler. Tried before the Hon. Jno. K. Henry. The indictment in this case charged, that the prisoner, who was a slave, by night broke and entered into a dwelling-house, occupied by Mrs. Catherine Crawford, with intent to commit a felony. The evidence against the prisoner was altogether circumstantial. The entrance into the house was effected by raising a plank in the floor.

Error from the Circuit Court of Russell. Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. The indictment in this case, which was found at the. February term, 1861, charged, “that Nancy Foster did sell, give, or deliver, to a slave named Moses, belonging to James Chapman, vinous or spirituous liquor, without an order in writing,” &c. The defendant pleaded not guilty* and the statute of limitations of twelve months; and issue was joined on these pleas.

Application by L. H. Hill, an officer in the provisional army of the Confederate States, and the enrolling officer of the district including the county of Montgomery, for writs of prohibition, to be directed to the probate judge of said county, enjoining and restraining him from further proceedings in the matter of the petitions of Asa J. Willis, E. P. Johnson,, and Calvin Reynolds, respectively, for the writ of habeas corpus, by which said petitioners sought to obtain their…

Application by Levi M. Stringer, for the writ of habeas corpus, to obtain his discharge from the custody of Major W. T. Walthall, commandant of the camp of instruction near Talladega.

These two cases, though decided together, were argued and submitted at different times.

Tried before the Hon. S. D. Hale. The complaint in this case was in the following wordsiH Joseph C. Bradley 1 ' 1 ‘ms of the deEdward Cotten. , n foreign bill of exchange, which was drawn by David Larkin, dated Larvs. hundred dolkinsville, Alabama, April 21, 1855, on Messrs.

W. Rapiek. This action was brought by the appellant, against James M. Boykin, to recover the possession of a tract of land, with damages for its detention. The case was submitted to the court below on an agreed statement of facts, with leiave to either party to appeal. The land in controversy, as appears from the agreed statement of facts, belonged to Sarah M. McGfrew, having been devised to her by her father.

Tried before the Hod. Wi. S. Mudd. - ■ This action was brought by the appellee, a body corporate, to recover the sum of five hundred dollars, alleged to be due from the defendant for the rent of certain lands leased by the plaintiff.

Heard before the Hon. M. J. Sapfold. The bill in this case was filed, on the 30th April, 1858, by Hazael Warfield, against Paul Ravesies and Virginia, his wife; and sought to subject the statutory separate estate of Mrs. Ravesies to the payment of a promissory note, executed by her and her said husband, dated December 15, 1856, payable, four months after date, to Daniels, Elgin & Co. or order, and endorsed by them to the complainant.

Heard before the Hon. N. W. Cocke. The original bill in this case was filed, on the 25th July, 1859, byHazael Warfield, against David L.… Held: that Woodruff & Huntington’s lien on Campbell’s judgment against Warfield, to the extent of their judgment against Warfield as the debtor of Campbell, was superior to Warfield’s equitable set-off against Campbell; and that the liens of Labuzan and Stewart & Brooks, respectively, to the amount of their fees for professional services…

Heard before the Hon James B. Clark. This case was before the court at its January term, 1862, on a motion by the appellee to dismiss the appeal, on account of the failure to revive it, as required by an order of the court made at the June term, 1860 ; and on a cross-motion by the appellant, asking an extension of time within which to make the necessary revivor. — See the case reported, ante, pp. 320-23.

Heard before the Hon. John Foster. The bill in this case Was filed on the 25th January, 1851, by W. W. Watkins, as the sole surviving executor of the last will and testament of… Held: that the entire interest in the property bequeathed to William S. Swoope, 'under the above clause of the will, vested in him, and passed to his administrator on his death; and this part of his decree is here assigned as error by the children of the testator’s three eldest sons above named.

Tried before the Hon. C. W. Rapier. This action was brought by the appellees, against Joel A. Roberts, as a partner in the firm of Lewis & Porteous ; was founded on two promissory notes, executed by said Lewis & Porteous, payable to the plaintiffs, — one for $1,441 97, dated November 15, 1859, payable eight months after date; and the other for $1,324 33, dated February 1, 1860, and payable eight months after date ; and was commenced on the 22d October, 1860. “On the trial,”…

Application by William W. Haughton for the writ of habeas corpus, or other remedial process, to procure his discharge from confinement in the county jail of Mobile.

Tried before the Hon. Henry Chamberlain. This action was commenced in a justice’s court, on the 29th March, 1859.

Heard before the Hon. N. W. Cocke. The appellees in this case, Wesley N. Capell and Harvey S. Capell, filed their bill against John Nugent, Griobe Landano, and others, to enforce a settlement of said Nu-gent’s accounts as their guardian, and to subject to the satisfaction of whatever decree might be rendered in their favor certain slaves and other property, which Nugent had mortgaged to the sureties on his official bond as guardian, and which Landano claimed by subsequent…

M. J. Saeeold. The bill in this case was filed by the appellees, as creditors of William M. Longmire, on behalf of all the creditors who might come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit, against said W. M. Longmire, J. J. Longmire, Garrett Longmire, and Stanford Mims. Its object was to have a deed of trust, by which said Wm.

Tried before the Hon. S. D. Hale. This action was brought by Reuben Crutcher, against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, to recover damages for the loss of a slave, who was accidentally killed while working on the defendant’s road; and was commenced on the 23d July, 1857.

Heard before the Hon James B. Clark. The bill in this case was filed by John H. Shannon, against Andrew J. Reese, as the administrator of Freeman B. King, deceased, for the purpose of enjoining a judgment at law, which said administrator had recovered against said Shannon.

Heard before the Hon. John Foster. j The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, as part-' /ners, on the 17th May, 1858, against Lewis C. Moore, Atlantic P. Moore, his wife, and Hugh M. and John Moore, his sons; and sought to restrain the defendants from diverting the water from a stream, called “ Coxe’s creek,” on which the plaintiffs had erected an extensive machine-shop, foundry, and grist-mill.

Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought in the name of the State, “for the use of township seventeen, range eleven, east, in the Coosa land-district,” against Samuel Miller and others, to recover the possession of a tract of land, which was described in the complaint as “the north half of the northeast quarter, and the south half of the north-east quarter, of section sixteen in said township and range;” and was commenced on the 27th March, 1855.

In the matter of the probate of the last will and testament of John Barnett, deceased, which was propounded for probate by Michael H. Barnett, the executor therein named, and contested by Mrs. Martha M. Hooks, who was a daughter of said testator.

Heard before the Hon. N. W. Cocke. The bill in this case was filed, on the 10th October, 3861, by Joseph B. Bibb, against George W. Shackelford and others ; and sought to restrain the defendants from erecting a mill-dam across Pintlala creek at a point which was situated in the complainant’s plantation.

Tried before the Hon. John Gill Shorter. This action was brought by James K. Pinkston, “ trustee of Matilda S. Pinkston, his wife, and who sues for her use,” against Gfeo. B. Nuckolls, to recover two slaves, together with damages for their detention; and was commenced on the 10th January, 1854.

Tried before the Hon. W. M. Brooks. This action was brought by Robert F. Russell, against William Stewart; was commenced on the 18th July, 1855 ; and was founded on a bill of exchange for $2,554 17, which was drawn by Robert Freeman, at Huntsville, Alabama, on the 6th February, 1854, on Bradley, Wilson & Co., at New Orleans, payable to John W. Weaver, by whom it was endorsed to the defendant, who endorsed it to the plaintiff.

Tried before the Hon. S. D. Hale. This action was brought by John H. McMillan, against Presley R. Woodall; and was commenced on the 6th February, 1860.

Heard before the Hon. James B. Clark. The bill in this case was filed by the appellants, on the 7th February, 1859, against J. A. & W. H. Knight, Lewis T. Wimberly, James C. Boyd, and others; and sought to establish and enforce, for the benefit of the complainants, a mortgage on certain real and personal property, which the said J. A. & W. H. Knight had executed to said Wimberly on the 2d January, 1851, to secure the payment of a promissory note therein described.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. This action was brought by Charles H. Lockhart, against Thomas Gr. Wood, John M. Philips, and Walter H. Weemsj was commenced on the 24th July, 1860; and was founded on an attachment bond, executed by the defendants, the condition of which was as follows: “ Whereas, the above-bound Walter H. Weems, as one of the attorneys of the said Thomas Gr.

Tried before the Hon. S. D. Hale. This action was brought by Jacob Wharton, against Jesse Martin; was founded on the defendant’s promissory note, under seal, for three hundred dollars, dated the 10th November, 1856, and payable on the 25th December, 1857 ; and was commenced on the 25th February, 1858, The defendant filed three special pleas, — the last of which averred a failure of consideration ; and the others were in the following words: “1.

Heard before the Hon. N. W. Cocke. The bill in this case was filed, on the 7th October, 1857, by Benjamin F. Pearson, against John W. Seay, Francis M. Mosely, and Mary Ann Mosely, his wife; and on the death of said Seay pending the suit, the same was revived against his personal representatives.

<p>Appear, from the Probate Court of Dallas.</p> <p>In the matter of the estate of Benjamin Y. Beene, deceased, which was declared insolvent on the J.2th April, 185S, and against which a claim was filed by the appellees on the 3d July, 1858. The appellees’ claim set out a bill of sale for two slaves, which was signed “Benjamin Y. Beene, adm’r,” and in the following words: “Deceived, Selma, July 7, 1855, of A. Collenberger & Co. seven hundred and eighty-five dollars, in payment for the slaves Sylvia and Henrietta; which said slaves were sold as under an order issued from the probate court of Dallas county on the 30th' June, 1S55, and purchased by the said Collenberger & Co., as the property of-Ellen Chapman. The said slaves I warrant, as administrator, to be sound.” Beneath this bill of sale was made out an account against the estate of Beene, in favor of Collenberger & Co., consisting of the following items: “July 7, 1855. To amount of above bill of sale, (the title to said slaves being now contested, on the ground that said Beene had no right to sell them under any order of probate court,) $785;” “interest on above, to day of allowance;” and, “cost of litigated title to said slaves.” The original affidavit, verifying the claim, was made by one Dublon, before a justice of the peace, on the 2d July, 1858, and stated, “that he believes the above demand tobe just-and correct, and that the same is unpaid ;” but an amended affidavit was made by one E. Ikelheimer, on the 3d May, 1860, stating that “ he knows the within claim is just, true, and unpaid, as charged against the estate of Jesse Beene, deceased.”</p> <p>On the 28th March, 1859, the administrator filed the following written objections to the allowance of this claim : “ 1st, because the affidavit states only the belief of an agent, and because the affidavit is insufficient; 2d, because said claim is not a proper charge against said estate;” and, 3d, “ to the claim for costs, because no amount is stated, and it is not sworn to as required by law.” On the trial, also, the administrator moved to reject the claim, “ on the ground that the affidavits filed in support of it were insufficient,” and reserved an exception to the overruling of his objection.</p> <p>The claimants proved, that the slaves were sold by said Beene, as the administrator of Ellen Chapman, deceased, at public outcry, and were bought by one Ikelheimer; as their agent, who received the bill of sale for them, and afterwards paid the note given for the purchase-money, which was $785; and that the slaves were afterwards recovered from said Ikelheimer, who held under them (claimants), by Evans & Portis, as administrators de bonis non of Ellen Chapman. They also offered in evidence the record of the suit brought by Evans & Portis against Ikelheimer, and the records of the probate court relating to Beene’s administration on Ellen Chapman’s estate; all of which are set out in the report of the case (Ikelheimer v. Chapman’s Adm’rs) in 32 Ala. 676-702. The order of sale, under which the slaves were sold by Beene, was held void by this court; and the recovery against Ikelheimer was based on the invalidity of the order.</p> <p>On the evidence above stated, the court allowed the appellees’claim; to which the administrator excepted, and which he now assigns as error, together with the overruling of his motion to reject the claim on account of the insufficiency of the verification.</p>

Heard before the Hon. M. J. Sappold. The bill in this case was filed, on the 18th December, 1850, by John Burden, against Lewis Potier and others, and sought to restrain a diversion of the watér of a stream known as Three-mile creek, which flowed through the complainant’s lands, and on which he had erected a mill. Potier, who was the principal defendant, died after filing an answer; and the suit was revived against his executors.

Appeal froih the Circuit Court of Lauderdale. Tried before the Hon. Wk. S. Mull. The appellee in this case obtained a judgment against -the appellant, on the 16th April, 1857, for $33 50. The judgment was jftunded on a note for $80, which was given Bfor the price of a horse ; and was rendered on the verdict * of a jury.

Heard before the Hon. James B. Clark. The bill in this case was filed, on the 10th November, 1857, by Paul J. Semmes, against Robert S. Hardaway, John McKay, Ann C. Cook, and Edward T. Taylor; asking the foreclosure of a mortgage on a slave, which was executed by said Edward T. Taylor to the complainant, and an injunction against the other defendants, who had levied attachments on the slave as the property of said Taylor.

Tried before the Hon. C. W. Rapier. This action was brought by John A. Chambers, against Thomas D. Bell and others, as owners of the steamboat J. M. Brown, to recover damages for the loss of a slave who was transported on the defendants’ said steamboat without the written authority of the plaintiff; and was commenced on the 30th July, 1860. The defendants pleaded “the general issue,” and issue was joined on that plea.

Tried before the Hon. Porter King. The appellees in this case obtained a judgment against, Gr. Stringer & Co., on the 16th April, 1850, and, bn the 16th October. 1852, summoned the appellant, by process, of garnishment, as the debtor of said Stringer & Co. The garnishee appeared, and filed a written answer on the 21st April, 1853, in the following words : “Said Q-.

Tried before the Hon. John Gtll Shorter. Held: that this was not a bar to the action. The arbitrator, in his award, reported a balance of twelve hundred and eighty dollars in favor of the plaintiff, being the item of five hundred dollars above mentioned, with interest thereon; and his award was confirmed by the court, and entered up as its judgment.

James B. Clark, The bill in this case was filed, on the 9th January, I860', by David Segrest, against the personal representative and heirs-at-law of his deceased brother, Reuben Segrest, Absalom… Held: and that it would be sufficient to pay the money by the next term; and that, in consequence of this information, he did not come to town on the first day of the term. The petition was duly sworn to, and was supported by the affidavits of other persons.

Tried before the Hon. A. A. Coleman. This action was brought by Burgess Garner, as the administrator de bonis non of Frederick Bell, against Darius D. Nichols, to recover several slaves, together with damages for their detention; and was commenced on the 1st October, 1859. The record does not show what pleas were filed.

Tried before the Hon. A. A. Coleman. This action was brought by Mrs. Mary E. Williams, the widow of Caleb Williams, against Allen Gr. Waters, who was the administrator of said decedent, to recover for the use and occupation by the defendant of a plantation which belonged to the decedent at the • time of his death ; and was commenced on the 12th December, 1859.

Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by John R. Brewer, against Mrs. Frances Fickling; was commenced in a justice’s court, and thence transferred by appeal, at the instance of the defendant, to the circuit court, where the plaintiff filed a complaint, claiming of the'defendant the amount of an account for certain necessary articles of family supply furnished to her during coverture; alleging that she was a married woman at the time, and that she owned a…

Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by A. A. Hamil, against John W. Mallett, as the administrator of E. Deming, deceased ; was commenced before a justice of the peace, and removed by appeal, at the instance of the defendant, to the circuit court; and on the trial in that court, the following bill of exceptions was reserved by the defendant ; “This was an action on an account.

In the matter of the estate of Mrs. Martha A. Poster, deceased, on an annual or partial settlement by Benjamin F. Foster, who was her husband, of bis accounts and vouchers as her executor. The testatrix and Benjamin F. Foster were married on the 3d October, 1857; she being at that time a widow, and having three infant children living, whose guardian she was by regular appointment from the probate court of Macon.

Heard before the Hon. James B. Clark. The bill in this case was filed, on the 23d September, 1861, by Jared E. F. Kirksey, and Elizabeth Kirksey, his wife, against Stewart & Lucius, Robert H. Patterson, John W. Womack, and others. Its material allegations may be thus stated: Mrs. Kirksey was the daughter of said Robert H. Patterson, and married said Jared E. F. Kirksey on the 5th October, 1858.

Heard before the Hon. John Foster. The bill in this case was filed, in September, 1840, by Silas M. Smith and wife, with others, claiming as legatees under the will of James J. Rennard, deceased, against Henry King, the executor, and the sureties on his several official bonds ; and sought a recovery of the complainants* legacies, an account, and settlement of the' estate.

Tried before the Hon. S. D. Hale. This action was brought by Charles W. Raisler, against Josiah Springer, to recover damages “for the unlawful taking of the following goods and chattels, the property of the plaintiff, to-wit: one buggy, of the value of one hundred dollars, and four thousand feet of plank and was commenced on the 1st February, 1858. The record does not show what pleas were filed.

Tried before the Hon. Robert Dougherty. This action was brought by the appellees, against the ¡administrator of Charles Rutledge, deceased, and was founded on three promissory notes, which were executed - ■by said Rutledge, jointly with John M. Milner and Martin W. Smith, dated February 5, 1855, and payable to the order of the plaintiffs; one for 12558 '79, payable on the 1st May next after date; another, for $2768 77, payable on the 1st January next after date; and the…

<p>Appeal from the Probate Court of Madison.</p>